I don't believe either of them.
After watching the whole miserable spectacle yesterday, I found neither Dr. Ford's nor Judge Kavanaugh's testimony particularly credible.
As a former trial attorney, it was clear to me that Dr. Ford had been coached on her answers in coordination with the Democrats on the committee, with the tip off being Sen. Leahy stumbling through the printed setup question that elicited the canned 'laughter...uproarious laughter' answer.
Another example of coordination is found in the strong objection by her attorney to questions regarding the polygraph test, followed by her failure to recollect any details of how she came to take the test or who paid for the test. Apparently we have only her counsel's word that she passed, as they have yet to release the actual results.
Regardless of her memories of the facts surrounding the allegations, the appearance of coaching and collusion with Democratic politicians diminishes her credibility as an impartial witness and suggests political bias as a motive for her statements.
Then this happened:
I have no idea what was in that envelope (Lee claims they were only fan letters), but the mere fact that a furtive Congresswomen is passing secret documents to the witness's counsel after the hearing is further evidence of the Ford team's less than forthright political impartiality.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, came across as a mean drunk. While I believe his tears and anger were sincere (especially when talking about his dad), I did not find them particularly dispositive of his innocence. He has obviously been put through the ringer by the drawn out hearing, and frustration and impatience at having to endure this ordeal to gain a position he clearly believes he is entitled to seemed to be more the motivation than outrage at having been falsely accused.
Once he calmed down, Kavanaugh spent much of the hearing too-expertly filibustering the Democrats (incredibly lame) questioning. He was combative at times, but again, mostly out of anger at the process rather than the allegations. He also clearly liked (and still likes) to drink, and his repeated statements about how much he loves beer left me wondering how on earth the guy was able to post such a stellar academic record with all the partying he did all through those years.
The whole thing left me shaking my head as to what really happened. Ford supplied no new factual corroboration or other witnesses to back up her testimony, and indeed, when asked under questioning about her counselor's notes on the incident stating there were four other people in the room at the time, she admitted that the notes contradicted her hearing testimony that there were only two others. Another credibility strike.
Kavanaugh too, despite his protestations, was clearly no choir boy in high school. He was a smart jock who hung out with a pretty fast crowd. I don't think he is necessarily lying about being a virgin, but as the hearing went on I started envisioning a scenario where his party buddy 'Judge' saw an opportunity to alleviate that condition by exploiting a troubled girl who was having a tough time fitting in.
So while the lawyer in me is still certain that the totality of evidence in no way rises to the threshold necessary to disqualify Kavanaugh, after watching the hearing the 'juror' in me is left with more doubts than answers about what really happened.
Comments
What are you complaining about?
All this from WIKI:
"The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of ...
Bush. During his term in office, President George H.W. Bush made 194 judicial appointments. He nominated (and had confirmed) two justices of the Supreme Court: David Souter and Clarence Thomas.
Bill Clinton. During his two terms in office, President Bill Clinton made 379 judicial appointments. Among those were two justices nominated (and confirmed) to the Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Bush made 194 judicial appointments. He nominated (and had confirmed) two justices of the Supreme Court: David Souter and Clarence Thomas.
In total Reagan appointed 3 Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States and appointed a sitting Associate Justice as Chief Justice, 83 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 290 judges to the United States District Courts and 6 judges to the United States Court of International Trade."
dfarrah
As much as I am loathe to defend DiFi...
She probably wasn't the one driving the train on this.
My guess is that the reason she sat on the letter was because she thought the allegations were too thin to bring forward, and she wasn't going to 'go there' unless she had more to work with.
Then, when it looked like Kavanaugh's confirmation was a lock, a report that DiFi had the letter was leaked. (DiFI was adamant at the hearing it wasn't her who told WaPo she had the letter.)
My bet Hillary and Brock were putting pressuring DiFi all along to release the letter, and when it became clear she didn't want to play along, they took matters into their own hands.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Maybe yes and maybe no,
and maybe all sides hoped the scandal could stay buried until Kavanaugh was confirmed and it was too late for anyone to do anything about it. (You know what the Dims are like - resist just hard enough to put up a flimsy pretense of opposition, and then fold like a deck of cards.)
NO Supreme Court judge has EVER been removed via impeachment - that route was blocked for all time by the Samuel Chase case.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Entirely plausible, imo. n/t
I agree.
I also don't want him on the court.
What I have seen of his behavior, I don't have a TV, looks like Bullying, Mouthy Conservative Operative, Whatcha goin to do about it, huh? which we have seen many times.
Mary Bennett
Yeah, some
snowflake women said K scared them.
I recall a black co-worker who went into a meeting angry over a chimp poster he felt was racist. The women were askared of him too and testified such.
He eventually settled with the employer; his own boss testified on his behalf (and I was glad for him).
Alot of women, for all their tough talk and grrrrrrrl power, are snowflakes.
Sometimes, it is just embarrassing to be a woman.
dfarrah
heh...
you know, if you feel that a pejorative term like "snowflake" is the only way that you can express yourself adequately, well i guess, go for it.
on the other hand, in common usage, it's polarizing language and really doesn't help to build community or comity.
It's sad to see someone saying something like this
What are you trying to say there?
As for this ...
????
Sounds like First or maybe Second Wave feminist thinking
First Wave feminists (c. 1840-1920) thought that obtaining the right to vote would be enough to ensure equality. They were wrong.
Second Wave feminists (c. 1920-there are some of them still around) thought that gaining financial independence would be enough to ensure equality. They were wrong too.
It has become abundantly clear that nothing short of a complete overhaul of cultural beliefs, practices and attitudes will even begin to suffice. There is, as yet, not a lot of consensus on how to achieve this or how far to go. But one thing for damn sure, conceding ground to the Patriarchy and using their arguments to cut down anyone who steps forward will not result in anything but more Patriarchy. "The master's tools will never disassemble the master's house."
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
financial independence is a big step forward, though --
which i hypothesize is one of the reasons that reproductive independence has become the battleground for women's civil liberty -- it's very hard to assert your financial independence if you cannot control your fertility. and the other side understands this -- though most of them probably don't understand that this is their motivation.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
to further elaborate, it's very difficult in the modern era
to make any sort of case against women having a large degree of personal financial self-reliance, because the only justifications for withholding that power are bizarre.
the useful thing about fighting against women's reproductive independence is that it can be fought on purely moral terms. Abortion == Evil. The Pill == abortifacient. IUD == abortifacient. Norplant == Depo Provera == abortifacient. Sex without babies/consequences == Sin.
Etc.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Spot on comment
Snowflake?
What I know of his record scares me. Also that he appears to me to be no more than ordinarily intelligent, nevermind the allegedly brilliant academic career, and a bullying sycophant who never had an original thought in his life, and who can be counted to vote however his masters instruct him. No doubt he will be given some brilliant and bought conservative apparatchik for a clerk to do the real work.
Don't forget that snowflakes united is an avalanche. There are ways to deal with bullying, smirking chauvinists (a buzzword I mostly like to avoid, but it seems appropriate here), and those ways don't include "talk about it" or "reach out" or anything of the kind. I know you never typed that, I am typing in general terms. The basic principle, once you have IDed someone of the male persuasion as a malevolent force, is don't give them a response, other than commonplace courtesies, and those only when you have to respond. That puts the a**hat on notice that he is never, never going to be able to claim you were asking for it, whatever "it" might be.
I see these hearings as a car crash, with entitled jerkiness colliding with entitled, willful stupidity.
What I hope will come of all this is that men AND women will conclude that neither way of being is likely to win friends and influence people for much longer.
Mary Bennett
"coaching witnesses"
I am hired by attorneys to school witnesses on how to answer questions. Like,
"I think, I guestimate, it might, maybe, " are not answers to questions. You either know for sure and certain, as a fact witness, or you answer "I cannot truthfully answer that question."
As to lie detectors.
If the operator asks more than 5 questions, the results are a joke. That is straight from the Texas Rangers who trained in DC. They are the damn best.
I have no idea how many questions Dr. Ford was asked.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
That's interesting, OTC. It reminded me
that I was given one bit of advice which perhaps could be considered coaching,
to listen very carefully to the question, and answer it, and only it.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Correct.
Listen to the question. Formulate the answer before you respond. Keep it short. Do not hesitate to say "I do not know" or "I do not understand the question." Stay on point, do not stray. Look directly at the jurors, or at the judge if it is a bench trial. Do not show anger during cross examination. Smile. Voice low and calm. If your hands shake, sit on them.
Take your time. Think. Be sure, be truthful.
If that is "evil witness coaching", so be it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with telling a witness what to say.
It is coaching the witness on the best way to get the truth onto the record.
I have coached eye witnesses with low IQ's.
They sailed through.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Two questions
That is what I read. I remember it because I wondered why so few. Your comment provides the explanation. Thanks. Btw, one of the questions was assigned a 0.02 percent chance of being untruthful. (Hope I stated that correctly...in other words, the answer was truthful.)
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
I heard the ex-FBI dude who administered it, WD13--
'two' is what he said.
Basically, after they went over her statement (sort of like an affidavit) he asks questions related to the veracity of the contents of the statement.
Says that's more accurate, than asking a flurry of questions.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
The tabloid bullshit continues.
And the 'Caucus' continues to obsess over it. No wonder the left can never exist.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
This country never outgrew Puritan prurience
and the obsession with sticking noses into other people's business.
The Puritans had a theological justification for riding herd on everyone: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. They really believed that unless the entire community, every single person in it, was upright and righteous, their God would come down and smite them.
So what's the excuse nowadays?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Well … “The focus on individuals happens for a reason”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/26/time-to-wake-up-the-neoliberal-o...
(via JackPine Radicals)
https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/time-to-wake-up-the-neoliberal...
Gleaned from both the comments and from the linked Counterpunch article itself:
Look, everyone! “Toxic masculinity” is going down! “Woke intersectionality” is taking its place! Hurrah! We’re saved! — Entirely hollow . . .
@lotlizard Looks like somebody
Looks like somebody wrote the essay I was thinking about. Awesome. That's one off the list, LOL.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@The Aspie Corner The tabloid bullshit is,
The tabloid bullshit is, I think, designed to achieve exactly this end.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
one sentence I remember of Ford's testimony that
edited
1.) oops, edited name in title - sorry, read too much too late
2.) after having posted I remembered myself the way doors lock in the US.
3.) I found her representation credible, just hate the whole thing so much that I don't want to deal with ti.
This got me 'confused'. Unfortunately I can't find the video with her complete testimony. But she said about the event that happened round about this:
That she was pushed upstairs by the 'boys' behind her and pushed into a bedroom. She was thrown on to the bed. The boys locked up the room (I understand that meaning that they locked the room from the inside and kept the key). That seemed to be the first thing that really scared her. She was 15, I would have been scared too.
The 'boys' in question (ie supposedly Kavanaugh) put his hand over her mouth so that she couldn't yell. That was the second thing which must really have scared her, especially if he had her head under his control with a tight grip. She might have had difficulties to breathe and therefore fear of being killed. Very believable, imo.
Then she said after the jumping on the bed by the other 'boy' was over, she toppled over the the bed to the floor and that she had the possibility to escape the room into a bathroom, where she locked herself in until she heard from the bathroom that the boys were leaving and went downstairs.
My question is, how was she be able to unlock the bedroom, when she was full aware the room was locked before? I don't know what kind of doors were in that bedroom, but if the boys locked it, they wanted it to be 'unlockable' only from the outside, so that nobody could get in, while they assaulted her? Or did they wanted it to be 'unlockable' from the inside as well, so that she wouldn't be able to escape?
While I am sure that she was scared profoundly, I am not sure, why, she having become a professional in psychology, haven't thought long and hard, how valid her own judgment of her PTSD etc. really are and if it was 'enough' to justify to say it affected her her whole life. I would like to know in what form her trauma from that event manifested itself. Nightmares? Anger outbreaks? Depression? She was able to make a career as a professional. So if the PTSD or trauma was haunting her her whole life, it hasn't affected her functioning in society and in her professional life to make a career, especially as a psychologist. May be she has thought about herself and that event too much. But it seemed to have make her strong and it didn't kill her, so to speak.
Similarly Kavanaughs testimony is that of a well greased oily slippery professional par excellence. The behavior would be very fitting to how I observed from an outsider's angle the culture of the political and media and diplomatic elite with their overprivileged sons and daughters in the DC environment to be in the second half of the eightlities. It certainly was true that those kids were protected from any consequences of their behavior by her parents and schools.
And as someone else mentioned it is as apalling to me that politicians need to use their kids to send them to military service into wars to show how committed they are to public service. Or they use their own victimization in former wars as being tortured.
I simply don't like to read and watch more. It's all somewhat low. I have a pity with all of them to have to put themselves up naked in front of the cameras and I have a profound dislike for video editors to search and cut the camera material in ways that it hits the emotions of the public in an unhealthy way.
That is enough for now for me.
https://www.euronews.com/live
there are two possible explanations:
Possibility 1. Typically, in American homes locks on bedroom doors are spring-catch mechanisms (no key is involved) that are intended, not to keep someone in, but to keep someone out. The lock automatically releases as soon as you turn the knob from inside the room. The boys wouldn't have locked the door to keep her there, they'd have locked the door to prevent anyone from accidentally (or even curiously) walking in on them and interrupting their entertainment. (BTW, such locks can usually be opened from outside the room, not with a key, but by inserting a pin or paper clip into a small hole in the handle on the outside of the door. Thus, their primary use is to A, make it clear to others that they are not welcome in the room, and/or B, give the person inside the room significant warning before someone comes in. They will NOT prevent someone from entering, if that person really wants to.)
Possibility 2. The bathroom was attached directly to the bedroom -- an "en suite" as they are called in British parlance.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Moreover, they are not mutually exclusive
It's quite possible - fairly common, in fact - to have a spring-catch bedroom door and an "en suite" bathroom (which may or may not also have a spring-catch lock).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
that's actually what i envision.
given that it is rather unlikely that the bathroom door had a lock that couldn't be sprung from the outside, i think it reflects an interesting cognition on the part of the perpetrators. as long as they were able to just sort of overwhelm the victim with their body mass, the whole thing still felt like fun and games to them. the prospect of springing the lock and forceably dragging her out of the bathroom, on the other hand, was something they weren't inclined to do. (of course, stating it like this, i'm suddenly taking as granted that the events happened as Ford has outlined them. feel free to treat it as a hypothetical.)
the psychology of male adolescents is beyond strange. certain behaviors that from an objective standpoint seem clearly like violent coercion don't necessarily feel that way to many/most young males -- or at least, didn't back then, i can't speak for today's kids. to my friends and me, a low level of physical combat was simply what was happening among us all of the time -- and I was not a frat-boy jock type, nor were most of my high school friends. if somebody wouldn't give you a pencil or a piece of sports equipment or the fricking 20-sided die so you could roll a saving throw, the solution was you grabbed him, put him in a head lock, and wrestled the damn thing away from him -- and such situations arose frequently, because guys will do that to each other (take things and hold them out of reach) just for the hell of it. yeah, we've all seen the cliched movie scenes where the bullies grab their victim's hat and play monkey-in-the-middle with it, but there's a non-bullying context as well, one where friends do it just to annoy each other.
for that matter, if somebody wanted the 20-sided die to do something you didn't want done, before it came to the point of him wrestling it from you, you were likely to throw it at him. ever seen a guy do the "think fast" thing? where you just whip something at someone? a basketball, or a beer, or the car keys? that is the simple reality of how boys interact with each other -- it's an endless, continual series of mild, friendly, and functionally reflexive physical challenges.
reflecting back to a comment i made a couple of days ago, with the coming of the sexual revolution and "women's lib", as it was called back then, i think guys started treating girls more like they treated other guys. i know there are a few moments in my life when i did that -- including smacking a friend in the back of the head, in a way that between two guys would not have raised an eyebrow (though it would probably have gotten me slapped back, at minimum), but that after i'd done it i thought, fuck, that wasn't too cool.
things have changed a lot, and not just between boys and girls (or men and women). many of the things we took for granted as normal are things that would get you suspended from school today -- and maybe even charged. as 8-year-olds wrestling on the play ground, we had two go-to submission moves: one, the old twist-the-arm-up-behind-the-back trick, and the other -- believe it or not -- was to just grab the other kid by the nuts. nobody thought it was weird, or dirty, or "gay" (we barely comprehended the existence of homosexuals), or anything other than a practical approach to winning.
none of which is intended to excuse the kind of acts that Kavanaugh is accused of. to the contrary, i think it sheds light on the way that immoral/unethical people took/take advantage of relaxations in the rules by which males and females interact in our society -- not deliberately, because no deliberation was involved. when you're selfish and unethical, you take whatever you think you can take -- it's not a calculation, it's just action.
i also think that none of this is going to get simpler in our modern era. teens and 20-somethings now live in a milieu of startling sexual (and chemical) libertinism, much of which they seem inclined to document on video and share with the world. i occasionally wonder how that is going to affect political and judicial candidacies in 30 years' time. instead of parsing peoples' fuzzy recollections, are we going to be parsing the fucking videos? "Wait, see that right there? Are you telling me she's not enjoying it?" Ugh. Happily, I'll probably be dead by then.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@UntimelyRippd Anybody who threw
Anybody who threw a 20-sided die at another player would be asked to leave my table, and they'd have to plead with me and promise good behavior going forward to come back.
I've seen some crap at D&D tables, but never that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
i don't know what to tell you.
we used to randomly body check each other into the walls and the lockers at school. we were casually and cheerfully violent to one another.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
She said the bathroom was across the hall.
And yes, doors on bedrooms and bathrooms have simple locks that don’t allow someone outside to walk in unannounced. They open easily from the inside.
Her testimony was that she ran when they fell off of her, across the hall and then locked herself in the bathroom until they had stumbled down the stairs and didn’t return for a while. Opening that bathroom door and making a run for the front door would have been terrifying.
Personally I find her story completely credible and plausible and see no reason to disbelieve her. Kavanaugh on the other hand is obviously (to me) a lying snake.
There are so many reasons he shouldn’t be on the SC, it’s just sad to see so clearly how broken our government actually is. And it made me sad to see how broken she was... but I also appreciated and was kind of inspired by her bravery. I too still have anxiety disorders and occasionally panic attacks, so her whole demeanor and the fear she was struggling with felt so familiar, I was awed at her getting up there and doing that. Even though she never should have needed to do that.
It also makes me sad to see so many people attacking her. I think the democrats and especially DiFi used and abused her, in a sick manner. That doesn’t make me sad so much as angry. I believe they wanted Kavanaugh to get confirmed, which is why they tried to ignore her at first, but once this story got out and the media started running with it, they went all in to maximize the political potential. Pure opportunism, and I would imagine that Dr Ford will, at some point, find herself dealing with some serious anger at them. That she thought reaching out to her elected representatives was going to accomplish anything or they would care is, well, sad.
Apparently sadness is my overall mood today. I totally believe that Kavanaugh will be confirmed and that he will be a terrible SC justice. But this is not surprising. Whoever trump chooses would be a right wing political tool. We knew that when he got elected. So I can’t seem work up a lot of energy. I feel drained of the ability to care anymore, the whole government from top to bottom is a farce.
I was impressed by those young ladies who got into Jeff Flake’s face yesterday. And it seems they got to him, at least for a minute. That was surprising. He is not running for re-election, so it was a surprise that he listened to a couple of young ladies letting him know how it feels, to see this farce of a hearing play out like the stage show it was. But once they have the cover of this so-called “investigation” for a few days, they will vote him in. The ending of this show was too obvious.
thanks, i haven't read the testimony.
as i just posted in another comment, i would have guessed the bathroom was attached to the bedroom, only because of the socioeconomic class of the people involved -- but the truth is, back in the days before mcmansions, that wasn't a terribly common feature of american residential architecture.
the story as presented makes perfect sense to me. that doesn't mean i accept it at face value -- the "makes sense" fallacy is one of the easiest and most epistemologically dangerous, and i get very cautious when i know that it is in operation.
i doubt that Ford would not have come forward with this had it not been for the MeToo movement. i'm not sure what she expected, but from some of the things she said early on, i don't think she's too surprised by how she's been treated -- she seems to have been alert to and afraid of the danger.
i'm not particularly interested in speculating as to the Dems' motivations. the thing is loose in the world now, and it will rampage as it chooses -- clearly it is out of anybody's control at this point. i think it is interesting that many on this site believe that the whole thing remains Kabuki -- that Kavanaugh's appointment remains assured. I'm not so sure. I think maybe (to rework the original line) the Entwives have awoken and discovered that they have power.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I watched videos of her testimony after I got home from work
She stated that although she had a great deal of fear about speaking out, the reality of what she’s been subjected to was “much worse” than she had imagined. Including the death threats and having her personal information like phone numbers, email, home address, etc., as well as that of her parents, all posted online and hoards of people suddenly hounding her and threatening her and her family, to the point she’s had to leave her home and is living in hiding with security guards.
She said she did not anticipate these extreme reactions and she was obviously struggling with all of it. I can’t imagine how anyone actually watching her speak could conclude she’s a publicity hound or in any way desired this circus.
I would agree that the me too movement may well have contributed to her decision to come forward, and the internal pressure she felt to do so. That’s rather the point of the movement. Power in numbers, and giving people the courage and drive to stop being silent. Millions of people have been silent for too long, and the theme turned to “times’s up.” Enough.
But, on the other hand, she testified, and provided 4 corroborative sworn statements, that she began speaking about the assault to some people back in 2012. Long before Metoo, she was struggling with her conscience and her silence, especially as he gained power and prominence, versus the desire to just take the easy road, let it go, don’t bring this on yourself. That she felt she would not be able to deal with the guilt of not speaking out as he ascended to the SC might well have been the same with or without the metoo movement.
the look on Flake's face looks to me like
a guy who once had ideals (most of which i don't share, but that's not the point) and is looking around now at the smoking ruins of something he once believed in, and he just wants it all to be over. he knows that kavanaugh is a horrible human being, and he knows that his party -- one of those things he once believed in -- is going to keep trying to shove this guy through come hell or high water, and he's wondering how the hell it ever got this crazy, to reference Glenn Frey (somebody else i didn't particularly like).
but that's just my take, looking at a guy's face. maybe he's just thinking, "fuck, i need a whisky and a line."
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
If more than half the women in U.S. have been assaulted then ..
I have been struck by the tone-deafness of many of the comments on this blog for the past week.
In working with large numbers of women over the years (i.e., in the thousands), both in writing classes and in health care clinics, it has been eye-opening to learn that at least half of them have experienced sexual assault or abuse -- most often from husbands, fathers, stepfathers, uncles and other members of their families.
Most research from women's health organizations asserts that far more than 30% of women have been victims of predatory sexual behavior.
Something I wonder about in these debates: if that many women have been assaulted than anywhere from 1 in 3 men to 1 over every 2 men has committed assault (leaving aside for the moment those men who have also experienced sexual assault most often from men).
That fact is never openly discussed. I feel quite certain that at least 1/3 of the men in Congress, on the Supreme Court and who have occupied the White House have been guilty of some form of sexual assault or abuse of women or children in their lives.
I am saddened that the debate on C99 has become so completely enmeshed in fake news and conspiracy theories.
Does anyone not think that at least part of what is being enacted here is a raw show of power toward women and those who would expose the lies of the entitled men who make these speeches?
I participated in survivor's gatherings this week. These were very important regardless of who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The raw courage of a young survivor -- to block the elevator door -- and enliven Jeff Flake's conscience was breathtaking.
When Kavanaugh testified, his demeanor and temperament brought flashbacks to me and to many other women of the exact way that men's faces look when engaging in assault. That was a contributor to PTSD and the doubling of calls to crisis lines this week.
The other horribly crippling factor is the enablers. The first arrow is the assault itself. The second, and more powerful, is the closing of ranks of the enablers -- around family members, around powerful men from elite schools, around their own. That provides the ultimate demonstration of their absolute powerlessness to victims of these attacks. The enabling of the candidacy of this very entitled man to become a Supreme Court justice - where he can permanently abuse all women and victims is sickening.
If those facts are not as important to you as who was any misbehavior on the Democratic side of the committee, then you have truly lost your way. Even scoundrels are sometimes on the right side of history. This week people like Sheldon Whitehouse and Mazie Horono spoke for me. I had a very small and weakened contingent in that room asking for justice -- and that was welcome.
Not only do they have legitimate and authentic responses to the predation of women but they also recognize that Kavanaugh's nomination is a battleground because he is the 5th vote on a court that can then support the unlimited and predatory behaviors of the State.
If you have never been such a victim -- or if you have victimized others in this way, and undoubtedly some of you have -- then none of this is as important as conspiratorial gossip about who was collaborating. But all politics, in all countries, involves collaboration and often behind-the-scenes behaviors that are never discussed publicly -- the question is not whether this happens, but rather whose side are they on?
I have begun to see some of the dialogue on this blog as being just as corrupt as the structure it attempts to analyze. There seems to be a loss, by several frequent commentators, of any sense of what truly matters, what supports that as well as what corrodes it. And an ignorance or lack of concern as the last nails are being driven into the ability even to have blogs such as this or to protest.
Thank you, MsDiDi!
Very poignant, and heartfelt comment! Thank you!
@MsDidi And what percentage of
And what percentage of the men would ever think (notice I said think, not admit) they had ever sexually assaulted women? I would bet that number is no more than 5%.
And therein lies the problem in a nutshell.
This is erroneous
You're assuming that perps and victims correspond 1:1. Most sexual predators have many victims, thus a large percentage of women translates into a very small percentage of men. This casual slander of men in general isn't helpful.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Excellent point.
The 'casual slander' you mention is so counterproductive.
Why do many who wish to raise awareness of sexual assault seek to do so in a way that alienates the vast majority of men who are empathetic to these very serious concerns?
I just don't get what all the pointless shaming of people who have never done anything wrong accomplishes.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@MsDidi I am a victim, or rather
I am a victim, or rather, a survivor. I was a victim for years, until mercifully, my stepfather decided to leave the city. I didn't have a relationship, with anyone, till I was 36 years old, when, by the grace of the Goddess, I slowly began to heal. There are many things I will never be able to take for granted that others, blessedly, can. Those of you who are survivors know what I mean.
I'm horrified by your comment, Didi. You seem to suggest that the divide in what used to be the Left is unbridgeable; that one can no longer both fight against the corrupt system which is killing us all, albeit some of us more slowly than others, and fight against specific oppressions and abuses suffered by particular groups of people, due to the injustice of our culture: sexism, racism, homophobia, abuse. Further, I'm horrified by the fact that you seem quite comfortable with the assertion that those who disagree with you--including me, by the way--must be people who have not been abused, and possibly perpetrators themselves.
I'm reminded of something that happened to my boyfriend in PetSmart the other day. A Trump supporter kept insisting on talking politics to him, focusing on Anita Hill. He kept saying to my boyfriend "You have to pick sides. You have to pick a side," while jabbing him in the chest with his finger. Apparently that's now the case. We have to pick sides, but not against the people this woman picked sides against:
Those sides aren't even part of the discussion, because when you put those sides into the discussion, you sure do see conspiracy theories and collaboration and all manner of corruption infesting just about everything, including the spectacle we see before us.
I have been refusing to pick a side (so has my boyfriend, by the way) because we can see that picking sides serves the people who are slowly killing us all; in fact, they've decided what the sides are and how the entire fight is going to work, which is what makes this different than the fights I remember having as a young feminist in the 80s, or those my mother had in the 70s before me. Back then, the movements were not mass-produced and exploited by high-paid people in Washington, D.C.
Say I'm cruel, indifferent, uncaring, a monster, a perpetrator, a sexist, whatever you choose. I am responding as honestly as I know how to the data in front of me, and I will continue to NOT "choose a side" in a battle created by a bunch of bastards who wish me ill, as long as possible. If I am eventually forced to pick a side, I guarantee you it won't be the side that thinks I should ignore power so that I can defend the oppressed.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I believe this is called...
..."damnation by faint praise".
NOTHING should be more just cause for ill-tempered behavior than getting hit with false accusations, especially of this gravity. With the sickeningly ironic exception of his guilt in this particular case, the idea that he would be comparatively cool with it says EVERYTHING bad about him in all ways.
Has he not been caught in multiple counts of perjury in the confirmation hearings alone?!? They've got proven criminal acts right in front of their eyes, why isn't that enough, and why aren't they going with it (I mean, it was good enough to tag Bill with)?!? For that matter, the mere phrase "Constitutional originalist", spoken with a straight face, ought to be enough to get anyone Borked. That, in turn, all says EVERYTHING bad about the Blue-Team.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Draining the Swamp, indeed!
Trump putting this political insider/swamp creature on the SC is disgusting. As for his testimony, I saw "sniveling" close up and it was repellent. (I kept thinking, "What is up with his nose?") He doesn't have the temperament or discipline for the Court. He should just go away.
Yes. Even this FBI
Yes. Even this FBI investigation is kabuki. He has proven to be unfit for any court. I too wish we were investigating those other issues, at least in conjunction with the abuse issues.
All I'm going to say is that
All I'm going to say is that I believe her and knew creeps like Kavanaugh, because that was my hood. Georgetown Preppers were considered nasty little freaks then. Regular people didn't hang around them. And I am not talking about their lessers, in fact that forum, GP were probably lessers. You have no freaking idea what Bethesda Chevy Chase and Potomac are like. If you did, you'd have a totally different perspective.
Did you read the whole essay?
Because I think I made it clear I agree with you about that.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
And yet Ford
sought out their company.
dfarrah
No she didn't seek out there company
You have stated this more than once here and it's just as false now. Ford stated that after swimming she went to a gathering, not a party where her friends were. This didn't mean that she knew that he would be there and she deliberately put herself in his path.
This is not just about the he said, she said. This is much bigger than that. He lied during his testimony before Ford testified and after. That should disqualify him from the court don't you think? And IIRC you said that you are a lawyer so answer this in good faith.
Coming from before that time
and noting the separate boys/girls schools I tend to believe Ford to the greater degree. The choirboy act was stupid. Big question is why should Kav be approved on the paranoid partisan unhinged rant he delivered. If they wanted Hannity on the court they should have nominated him and skipped doughboy face. Kabuki.
@Snode And you think you would
And you think you would be cool, calm and collected if you were accused of sexual assault?
Wouldn't "an unhinged rant" be a more appropriate emotional response than a cool, calm and collected one?
He managed to be "cool, calm and collected"
during the Fox interview addressing the same allegations.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
@WindDancer13 A far less emotional
A far less emotional setting for sure. And probably on Fox was not subjected to any hard questions or questions he found insulting or degrading.
Back to my question. How would you react to a sexual assault accusation? Those accusations are becoming more and more common against women and some have now gone to jail. So put yourself in their shoes (if you are a woman, since I have no way of knowing) and answer the question.
The emotionalism occurred during
his opening statements, not while he was being questioned. During the question period he was belligerent and down-right rude. Just how a SC justice should act, right?
Personally, I have never in any circumstance (and I have been accused of things that were not true and some that were that I would prefer no one knew about) ever acted in this manner. That is not to say others wouldn't, but for myself particularly in a setting like this hearing, I would have remained respectful to everyone, not just those who were stoking my anger and stroking my ego.
If a woman had acted in the same manner as K, what would people say about her? Would they say "oh, she is justifiably upset over the accusation," but she will do the SC proud?
Two things: First, I disagreed with K's legal decisions long before the allegations were made known. Second, his threats to the Democrats illustrate his lack of partisanship that is supposedly required by the highest court in the land (or at least a semblance of it). He blew that right out of the water.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
@WindDancer13 Agreed that his
Agreed that his judicial decisions suck. Elections have consequences. The President gets to nominate whatever judicial political hack he wants and Congress gets to give the nominee the up or down.
It is a sucky ass way to pick a judge.
We are in this boat because Obama didn't get his political hack of a nominee passed in 400 days.
As for demeanor, and I have been in front of hundreds of judges in 35 years of being a litigator, I'll take a judge who has awful temperament who makes good legal decisions any day over a judge with a good demeanor whose decisions suck. I was just in front of one those good demeanor judges two weeks ago whose decisions sucked. Really sucked. Seems to be a nice guy though.
It is the equivalent of people who pick a doctor with great bedside manner without regard for how good he is.
And as for when people get choked up in court, lawyers included, me included, it can happen at the most in opportune time. Because often you are saying one thing and your mind is focused on something else.
Over the years I have choked up in court many more times than I care to count. And they were almost all "oh shit" moments where I said to myself, "why now of all times." It is weird that you can't control when emotions take over. The fact that he choked up at in inopportune time suggests to me it was legit. Same goes with anger.
Do you think he showed the judgment
to be a SC judge? He had a full day at least to edit his opening statement, but he chose not to do so, knowing that it would be inflammatory and spiteful. In fact, downright Trumpian.
For me personally: I write things down in the heat of anger and then go over them carefully to discard things that do not forward my purpose (or make me look like I am foaming at the mouth).
Do you think his repeated use of the word "refuted" for statements that were clearly not refutations displays a good grasp of how a judge should view testimony?
Do you think that yelling what is basically "I will get even" make you think that maybe, just maybe his rulings on cases may be suspect? That they may reflect less of the law than his own personal feelings? This is what I meant by temperament. Remember, he had at least a whole day to think about this.
Do you think his "tears" over a calendar instead of over threats to his family gives an indication of his priorities (his "job interview" over loved ones)? Does that indicate which precedent he will choose to follow in a case? Hint: His previous rulings do.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
@WindDancer13 The only
The only judgment I care about is his political/legal judgment. I don't give a flip how he acts any more than I care about whether a doctor has good bedside manner.
Supreme Court justices are there to give a "legal" interpretation of the Constitution and federal laws but that "legal" interpretation is just cover for a political viewpoint.
If you think their demeanor matters, you are just missing the point, bigly.
We blew it by not getting an SC justice that had a middle of the road (not a remote chance anymore to have a progressive political view) under Obama when he had 400 days to do it.
If Kavanaugh is not nominated, we will get a political clone appointed, the only difference being is that his or her demeanor will be more tolerable. But the opinions someone other nominee writes will be essentially the same.
It is arguably better to have an asshole on the court on the other side than it is a nice guy. AT least you know where he is coming from.
No.
No.
I've seen comments like this numerous times over the past few days, and it boggles my mind.
Of course, being accused of something you didn't do is going to be upsetting. All sorts of emotions come up. It can be traumatizing.
There are appropriate places and ways to vent your emotions: getting support from trusted friends and family, processing it with your therapist if you have one, writing it out in your journal, working it out physically at the gym. Find ways of taking back your power and dealing with the situation in a mature, adult manner.
Kavanaugh's behavior before the congressional committee last week was not that of a mature adult in control of himself.
In fact, I experienced his behavior at the hearing to be similar to that of an abuser who's been confronted by her/her partner. Cry, tantrum, rant and rage, scold, bully, glare, get red in the face, intimidate, and self-righteously insist that they've done nothing wrong. They're the real victim. The partner is the one who's at fault.
If confirmed, Kavanaugh will likely be in the public spotlight for several decades. I don't think he has the emotional maturity to handle himself in stressful situations, which as a high level political appointee and Supreme Court justice he's likely to face.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
@Centaurea This is exactly my
This is exactly my point. That is how you think he should act. Do you think everyone should think like you?
He wasn't crying over the allegations.
He was crying over the possibility he might lose the job.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@Not Henry Kissinger How do you know
How do you know counsel? You have no better crystal ball than I do. I have made the point on another blog that the reason the English courts enacted the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries over 400 years ago was because they gave up on figuring out which party to a contract was lying. I don't think us humans have gotten any better at lie detecting in the last 400 years, do you? But AI is not that far off. Stay tuned.
From my essay:
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@Not Henry Kissinger How do you know
How do you know he feels he is entitled to this position? That is your judgment based on what? Did he say he thinks he is entitled? How do you come to that conclusion?
Simply my opinion.
Based on watching his testimony.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@Not Henry Kissinger Each of us
Each of us are entitled to his or her own opinion about a situation. Doesn't make our opinions right. Remember the lesson of the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries. Maybe our forebears knew more about lie detecting than we do post Freud.
Pages